Monday, June 30, 2014

If it has been adequately
established, both historically from the Scriptures and the tradition that they inform
and by which they are informed and with which Jesus would have been familiar,
as well as within the context of the sermon on the mount, that purity of heart
is related to money (treasure) and its use, it is possible to then go on to
discern, based on that understanding, what it might mean to “see God.”

To determine what
this means, it is necessary to look outside the sermon on the mount, realizing
that the sermon of chapters five, six, and seven serve as the foundation of
what is going to be seen and hear from Jesus throughout the remainder of
Matthew’s Gospel. That is a completely understandable and plausible
assertion, as when one read a story that is presented in narrative form, as
Matthew’s presentation of Jesus most certainly is, the reader knows that the
things that are seen and heard and read early in the story will inform an understanding
of what comes later, just as what comes later generally allows a reader to
interpret that which has already been encountered.

With that said, it is
possible to turn to the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew. In the
thirty-first verse of this chapter, Jesus is heard speaking. He says
“When the Son of Man comes in His glory and all the angels with Him, then He
will sit on His glorious throne.” Now it is obvious that Jesus is here
speaking of Himself. Prior to this, Matthew presents Jesus speaking of
Himself as the Son of Man on twenty-three occasions. After this usage,
there will be an additional four, all found in the twenty-sixth chapter, thus
making for a total of twenty-eight self-references by Jesus as the Son of
Man.

When Jesus speaks of
the Son of Man in conjunction with coming in glory, angels, and a throne, He is
making explicit reference to the Son of Man of Daniel chapter seven.
Looking to Daniel, one finds “I was watching in the night visions, And with the
clouds of the sky one like a son of man was approaching. He went up to
the Ancient of Days and was escorted before Him. To Him was given ruling
authority, honor, and sovereignty. All peoples, nations, and language
groups were serving Him. His authority is eternal and will not pass
away. His kingdom will not be destroyed” (7:13-14).

When one hears
reference to the Son of Man, especially at this juncture in Matthew’s work
(though really throughout the entirety of the work), the reference demands to
be heard in the context of and in connection with the kingdom of heaven.
This Son of Man is given rule over all. He rules over the kingdom of the
Creator God, which is an interchangeable term with kingdom of heaven, with both
meaning the same thing (the Creator God’s will being done on earth as in
heaven, through the agency of covenant members). Since it is the Creator God
Himself that is understood to ultimately rule His kingdom, then it is quite
safe to say (though this probably needs far more qualifications and
explanations), that the Son of Man, though not the Ancient of Days, and though He
is not necessarily supposed to be looked to as “God the Father” (to use a Trinitarian
term), is of a piece with the Creator God.

Naturally, as the
Matthean narrative is compiled from a post-Resurrection perspective in which
Jesus is worshiped as the Son of God and the Messiah (the manifestation of the
Creator God in the flesh), the term “Son of Man” is quite naturally and overtly
bestowed with divine attributes. Put simply, if Jesus is understood to be
the manifestation of the Creator God, and if He calls Himself the Son of Man,
then the Son of Man can be understood to be the Creator God.

Sunday, June 29, 2014

In the tenth chapter
of Deuteronomy, Israel’s Creator God speaks to those that He intends to bear
His image in the world, thereby communicating what is expected of them, saying
“Now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you except to revere Him,
to obey all His commandments, to love Him, to serve Him with all your mind and
being” (10:12). Having said this, He continues to describe Himself, while
also informing those hearing these words how they are to perform in and for the
world, saying that He “justly treats the orphan and the widow, and who loves
resident foreigners, giving them food and clothing” (10:18).

Of course, the theme
of the need to care for the orphan and the widow, along with the resident
foreigner and the poor, is a theme that is taken up on page after page of that
through which the Creator God has revealed Himself. Deuteronomy
twenty-four is particularly focused in this area. In the seventeenth
verse the text reads “You must not pervert justice due to a resident foreigner
or an orphan, or take a widow’s garment as security for a loan” (24:17).
Additionally, “Whenever you reap your harvest in your field and leave some
unraked grain there, you must not return to get it; it should go to the
resident foreigner, orphan, and widow so that the Lord your God may bless all
the work you do” (24:19).

Likewise, “When you
beat your olive tree you must not repeat the procedure; the remaining olives,”
treasure, if you will, “belong to the resident foreigner, orphan, and
widow. When you gather the grapes of your vineyard you must not do so a
second time; they should go to the resident foreigner, orphan, and widow.
In the twenty-seventh chapter, just before God outlines His program of blessing
or cursing, based upon His people’s handling of their covenant responsibilities
(chapter twenty-eight), we find, along with a number of curses, “Cursed is the
one who perverts justice for the resident foreigner, the orphan, and the widow”
(27:19a).

Turning to Exodus, there
one finds “You must not afflict any widow or orphan. If you afflict them
in any way and they cry to me, I will surely hear their cry, and My anger will
burn and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives will be widows and your
children will be fatherless. Most certainly, though it is far from purity
of heart, those that do such things will see God, but clearly in a way which is
less than desirable. If we look to the prophets, such as Isaiah, we hear
him speaking on behalf of God, delivering a judgmental cry and saying “Learn to
do what is right! Promote justice! Give the oppressed reason to
celebrate! Take up the cause of the orphan! Defend the rights of
the widow!” (1:17).

The corollary to this
is “Your officials are rebels, they associate with thieves. All of them
love bribery, and look for payoffs. They do not take up the cause of the
orphan, or defend the rights of the widow” (1:23). Ezekiel sounds a
similar note, saying “They have treated father and mother with contempt within
you; they have oppressed the foreigner among you; they have wronged the orphan
and the widow within you” (22:7).

Ostensibly, because the
Creator God delivered His judgment against His people, as announced and
explained by these prophets in connection with their idolatry, their
mis-treatment of the resident foreigner, the orphan, and the widow could be
said to have stemmed from their idolatry. Had they been pure of heart, it
would have been demonstrated in their care for these groups, though one should
not pretend to insist that such care created a purity of heart. Their
lack of purity of heart was revealed in their treatment of the ones to whom the
Creator God directs so much of His attention and concern. Owing to this, the
covenant God’s people saw Him in a way that they did not want to see Him, but
that He had certainly promised. In the big picture, Jesus’ talk of being
“pure of heart” is set against idolatry, be it ever so subtle.

Saturday, June 28, 2014

With this in mind, Jesus goes on to explain that “The eye is
the lamp of the body” (6:22a). The eye, of course, having primacy in the
building of the desire to accumulate treasure and the recognition of the most
appropriate, kingdom-minded ways to liquidate that same treasure (treasure
being primarily money and possessions, though time must certainly be under
consideration). If that thought is held in mind, it is understandable to
hear Jesus continue to speak about treasure and its proper place, as He goes on
to say “If then your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light” (Matthew
6:22b).

A healthy eye views the world through the lens of the
kingdom of heaven, while the call of the Creator God’s people, historically and
for all time, to a light to the nations, does not drift too far from
conscientious consideration. With these thoughts in mind, Jesus can be
heard saying: “But if your eye is diseased, your whole body will be full of
darkness. If then the light in your is darkness, how great is the
darkness!” (6:23)

Now, how can one be sure that
Jesus is connecting His thoughts as presented in verses twenty-two and twenty-three
with the thoughts of treasure and the heart in verses nineteen through
twenty-one? Well, the reader can be assured of this when reaching verse
twenty-four, which says that “No one can serve two masters, for either he will
hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise
the other. You cannot serve God and money” (6:24). Clearly, money
(treasure and that which is used to acquire possessions) is an issue of the
heart. One who is pure in heart---the one who will see the God of Israel---is
one that rightly uses their money in service of the Creator God’s kingdom
purposes.

Certainly the
Scriptures have much to say about the use of treasure. If Jesus’ thinking
about the right use of money is influenced by Israel’s history and Israel’s
Scriptures, which it obviously was, then it will be quite worthwhile to look
into that history and those Scriptures in order to further illumination in
regards to purity of heart and its connection to the use of treasure. If
Jesus has in fact linked being pure of heart with properly using money, then
those Scriptures that seem to deal in this area will be immensely
beneficial. They will also provide a basis to return to Matthew’s Gospel
in order to make a final determination as to what it would mean, being “pure of
heart,” to “see God.”

Though there are
countless passages that beg to be accessed, a representative sample of passages
will suffice. Having already made mention of Deuteronomy in the course of
this study, as the book is called to mind in the quite obvious presentation of
Jesus as the prophet like Moses, as He delivers a new set of guidelines by
which the Creator God’s people are to operate, and doing so from a mountain, one
finds a veritable treasure trove of applicable statements in Deuteronomy.
These statements could be viewed as being inextricably linked with the covenant
God’s expectations for His people, as they attempted to demonstrate a purity of
heart that would serve in their directive to be a light to the nations.

Deuteronomy fifteen
presents key thoughts for consideration. Because Israel’s God insists
that “there should not be any poor among you” (15:4a), it is insisted that “If
a fellow Israelite from one of your villages in the land that the Lord your God
is giving you should be poor, you must not harden your heart,” always a
not-so-subtle allusion to Pharaoh, easily recognized by a people defined by
their exodus, “or be insensitive to his impoverished condition. Instead, you
must be sure to open your hand to him and generously lend him whatever he
needs” (15:7-8).

Thursday, June 26, 2014

Continuing the quest for knowledge, and specifically to
ascertain the defining characteristics of those that are “pure in heart,” who
are also those that will “see God,” it is now time to forward in the sermon to
the sixth chapter. It is there that one encounters the second and only
other use of “heart” in the course of this dissertation from the
mountain. This usage will prove to be quite beneficial in the quest.
It will not only impart knowledge, but also, along with so much else being said
here, inform the ethical, practical, and performative mandate in association
with the Christian’s charge to be the place where heaven and earth come
together---the Creator God’s will being done on earth as in heaven.

Interestingly enough, the
“Lord’s Prayer,” from which these words of the covenant God’s will, earth, and
heaven are lifted, constitute a portion of the preface to the second
presentation of the heart. It is worth mentioning that just as Jesus’
sermon began with a mention of the kingdom of heaven (5:3), so too does Jesus’
prayer include a mention of the kingdom of heaven within its opening
statements, as Jesus says “Our Father in heaven, may Your name be honored, may
Your kingdom come, may your will be done on earth as it is in heaven”
(Matthew 6:9b-10).

From there, it is not necessary
to travel a great number of verses before hearing the context for Jesus’
mention of the heart. Beginning in the nineteenth verse of this same
chapter Jesus says “Do not accumulate for yourselves treasures on earth, where
moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal. But
accumulate for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not
destroy, and thieves do not break in and steal” (6:19-20).

Given Jesus’ clear understanding that it is His God’s desire
that His will be performed on earth as in heaven, and given the context of the
kingdom of heaven come to earth that is everywhere present in Matthew’s
narrative as well as being the foundational structure for this particular
sermon, Jesus is not drawing a hard and fast dichotomy between the earthly
realm and the heavenly realm. Indeed, as it His intention to establish the
Creator God’s kingdom on earth, the seeming dichotomy between earth (usually
conceived of as the physical realm that is occupied by man) and heaven (usually
conceived of as the aspired-to final destination of Christians) actually
disappears.

It is paramount to hear Jesus speaking from within His own
culture and its conceptions, rather than from the position of a religious
culture that is overly and improperly defined by Greek (primarily Platonic) and
Enlightenment-driven thoughts of the separation of the physical from the
spiritual. Given the Jewish hope that the covenant God would establish
His reign through His Messiah, restoring His creation as an attendant feature
of the establishment of His kingdom, one would correctly hear Jesus speaking of
earth and heaven in terms of past and future. Treasures on earth would be
linked to the old world and the old way of doing things prior to the coming of the
Creator God’s kingdom that is heralded by the presence of Jesus, whereas
treasures in heaven are linked to the new way of doing things, in association
with the recognition of the God of Israel’s rule having come to earth.

It is following this talk of
treasure, and its earthly (pre-kingdom of God) usage versus its heavenly
(kingdom having come) usage, that Jesus speaks of the heart. He says “For
where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (6:21). Yes, the
disposition of one’s treasure reveals the disposition of the heart.
Clearly then, purity of heart is linked to the accumulation and disposition of
treasure in ways that are commensurate with the establishment and extension of
the kingdom of heaven.

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Now it can certainly
be said that the one that engages in adultery, whether through the actual and
physical action or through the desire of which Jesus here speaks, would not be
spoken of as being pure in heart. To that one would add that this does
not really take an observer any further down the path towards seeing the
Creator God, which is said to be the lot of those that are pure in heart.
Again, Jesus is making some programmatic statements, which would imply that He
has a program in mind. Likewise, Matthew presents Jesus programmatically,
so it behooves the reader to allow the sermon to build on its statements
internally, while also looking for the way in which the sermon works itself out
in application to the entirety of the narrative that is on offer in the whole
of Matthew.

Before moving on to
the next “heart” statement, let it be noted that there are many uses of “heart”
throughout Matthew’s Gospel, and all of them escape the lips of Jesus.
However, it is reasonable to presume that the explanation of what it means to
be “pure in heart” is to be found within the sermon, as Jesus goes on to define
His own terms within this bracketed context. Here, one must also consider
the possibility that Matthew has taken teachings of Jesus that were offered up
in various times and places, and grouped them all together into this one
“sermon,” especially if he was desirous of highlighting Jesus as a Moses-like
figure, thus fulfilling the Deuteronomic insistence that another prophet would
arise like Moses.

A reinforcement of
such a notion, though one could also consider that Jesus spoke what is heard
from Him in Matthew on numerous occasions, including this one, comes from the
fact that Luke has Jesus saying much the same thing (though quite a bit less
than Matthew) on a plain, rather than from a mountain. Along with that,
if looking to the Gospel of Mark and again considering that Jesus can indeed
say these things on more than one occasion (which is quite the reasonable and
probable proposition), then one sees a fair number of Jesus’ pronouncements,
mountain-related in Matthew, scattered throughout Mark’s narrative. So if
it is the case that Matthew has purposely grouped together these words of
instruction from Jesus, remembering that they, regardless of the format in
which they are presented, present Jesus’ conception of the life of the citizens
of the Creator God’s kingdom, then it is all the more important to allow for an
internal consistency, with terms defined by the sermon itself. This is
what is being attempted in regards to the term “pure in heart.”

Now, having mentioned
Deuteronomy in the context of Matthew’s desire to present Jesus as a lawgiver
Who is like Moses but, in fact, superior to Moses (“you have heard that it was
said… but I say”), it is worth going there to review what it was that was
reported to have been spoken by Moses. Now whether or not Moses actually
said these things, and there is little reason to dispute this (though some do),
such would not change the fact that Israel understood itself and defined itself
according to its historical narrative (which included Deuteronomy), and
especially that of the exodus and its attendant events (Sinai, the giving of
the law, the wilderness wandering, entrance into the promised land,
etc…).

Upon arrival there one
finds “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among
you---from your fellow Israelites; you must listen to him” (18:15). This
is then confirmed by the voice of the Lord, Who says “I will raise up a prophet
like you for them from among their fellow Israelites. I will put My words
in his mouth and he will speak to them whatever I command” (18:18). In
between the two insistences that such will take place, which Matthew must
simply have in mind as he constructs his theologically-tinged biography of
Jesus, Moses says “This accords with what happened at Horeb in the day of the
assembly” (18:16a). So when Moses speaks about the prophet like himself,
he actually connects it to what took place on a mountain. It is then
unsurprising to hear Jesus speaking from a mountain, which makes the
Moses-related point even more forcefully.

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

This, however, should
not trouble or dissuade kingdom-seekers, as Jesus says that “the kingdom of
heaven belongs” (Matthew 5:10b) to those that endure such things. They should
take heart and be encouraged, “rejoice and be glad… for they persecuted the
prophets before you in the same way” (5:12). Not only can one see this
worked out in the early church, as demonstrated by Luke’s historical treatment
in the book of Acts and as Matthew undoubtedly has the widespread persecution
of Jesus-followers (at the direction of the Temple authorities in Jerusalem) in
mind as he delivers Jesus’ words, but one can also see that Jesus, though He
does nothing more than live out His teaching on mercy, purity of heart, and the
making of peace, is most certainly persecuted for the sake of the way that He
insists upon demonstrating the Creator God’s covenant faithfulness---insulted
and persecuted for the way in which He speaks on behalf of and represents His God.

Having laid out His
premise, Jesus essentially goes on to explain what He means by His
Moses-and-Abraham-mindful introductory statement, with His treatments of anger
and murder, adultery, divorce, the taking of oaths, retaliation, love for
enemies, giving, prayer, proper fasting, true and lasting treasure, worry, and
judging. It is through His explanation that it is possible to go on to
learn what it means to be poor in spirit, to rightly mourn, to be meek, to
hunger and thirst for righteousness, to be merciful, and to be
peacemakers. Most importantly, for the purposes of this study, here it is
also possible learn what Jesus means when He speaks of being “pure in
heart.” Since it must be the burning and overwhelming desire of the heart
to “see God,” rightly assessing this statement could not be more crucial.

So if one understands
that Jesus is going to take the time to explain what He means by His
pronouncements in the beatitudes, then it is going to be necessary to look to
the remainder of the sermon in order to discover Jesus’ ideas concerning purity
of heart. Such is a relatively simple process, as one must merely look to
instances of the use of “heart.” The first that to be encountered is
later on in the fifth chapter. There Jesus is heard saying “You have that
it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever
looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his
heart” (5:27-28).

Though Jesus speaks
here of the heart, it seems to be more along the lines of a prevailing
condition of the heart, rather than instruction that would reveal what it is
that He means by being pure of heart. So though it is certainly
instructive, and though it certainly informs denizens of the Creator God’s
kingdom that more is expected of them (especially in light of the Resurrection,
through which one would naturally view Matthew and the whole of Scripture), it
does not truly assist a believer in learning how one can go about becoming pure
in heart.

One does not achieve
purity of heart, which is probably something that can be outwardly demonstrated
in a tangible ways, by simply avoiding adultery or lustful desire. At the
same time, avoidance of adultery is something that is completely expected, and
nobody is congratulated for not committing adultery, whether it be physical or
mental. One should not expect to get to see the Creator God simply
because one did not travel that path. There must be something more.

Monday, June 23, 2014

Jesus continues on to say “Blessed are those who mourn, for
they will be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the
earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for
they will be satisfied” (5:4-6). His use of “righteousness” helps to mark
a transition. “Righteousness” is best understood as “covenant
faithfulness.” This, of course, is what the Creator God has always
expected from His people---faithfulness to their covenant responsibilities to
represent Him and to be a light to the nations for the purpose of His
glory. Understandably then, almost immediately after finishing His
“outline,” Jesus reminds those that want to participate in the kingdom of
heaven (come to earth) that they are to be “the light of the world”
(5:14a).

Though this should
not be done too often (as it is paramount to let the Gospel narratives speak
for themselves, as they are informed by the history of Israel and the
implications of Jesus’ Resurrection), when considering the idea that
“righteousness” is to be equated with “covenant faithfulness,” it is useful to
look to one of Paul’s letters. Naturally, it is not unreasonable to
consider the possibility that Paul’s theological outworking of the meaning
behind the crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus had a role in shaping the
theology that stands behind Matthew and the other Gospels, and therefore also played
a part in giving shape to the narrative form that would be taken by the
Gospels. Additionally, looking to Paul, while also looking back into the
history of Israel, one can get a sense of the thinking in the time of Jesus
concerning this important subject.

In his second letter
to the Corinthian church, Paul insists that at least one of the purposes of the
covenant God’s redeeming activity is that “in Him,” that being Jesus (“in Him”
as a shorthand way of saying that it is through calling Jesus Lord, in a
pledged oath of loyalty, that all are enabled to enter into the grouping of the
Creator God’s covenant people), “we would become the righteousness of God”
(5:21b).

In short then, Paul
says that the Creator God desires that His people be the ones to carry out that
which represents His covenant faithfulness, as “ambassadors,” with “God making
His plea through us” (5:20), having given over to His covenant bearers (obviously,
through the working of the Holy Spirit), His “ministry of reconciliation”
(5:18)---the covenant God’s reconciling His people and His divine image-bearers
to Himself as part of His redemptive plan for His world that Paul refers to as
“new creation” (5:17). This happens, of course, because “the love of
Christ,” which was demonstrated by His willing and self-sacrificial death, and
by which He gave proof to the conviction behind His kingdom plans and
principles, and which believers should seek to imitate in principle if not in
form, “controls us” (5:14a).

Returning to Matthew
then, and considering Jesus’ introduction of “righteousness” or “covenant
faithfulness” into the sermon, one can see that Jesus proceeds to give at least
a partial summary of the form that will be taken by that execution of
righteousness (covenant faithfulness). Jesus says “Blessed are the
merciful… Blessed are the pure in heart… Blessed are the
peacemakers” (5:7a,8a,9a). Those that demonstrate these characteristics
will “be shown mercy… will see God… will be called the children of God”
(5:7b,8b,9b).

Amazingly enough,
however, Jesus indicates that those that live in such ways, rather than being
universally praised and lauded for their fine demonstration of their alignment
and agreement with the principles of the kingdom of heaven, will be “persecuted
for righteousness” (5:10a)---persecuted for the way that they demonstrate their
faithfulness to the covenant and the way that they insist upon people entering
into the covenant. In fact, those that insist upon this way of bringing
in, establishing, and expanding the Creator God’s kingdom will have an
altogether unexpected experience, as they will be insulted and persecuted,
whilst people speak evil of them on account of their loyalty to Jesus.

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. –
Matthew 5:8 (NET)

The fifth, sixth, and seventh
chapters of Matthew, commonly referred to as “The Sermon On the Mount,” begin
with a programmatic declaration. Jesus, in Moses-like fashion, has taken
up a position on a mountain in order to deliver news of the Creator God’s will
to the people and begins with a set of statements prefaced by “Blessed
are”. By using the term “blessed” while standing on the mountain to speak
to the people, Jesus has not only conjured up thoughts of Moses, but He successfully
pulls Abraham into His context as well, as the Creator God was specifically going
to bless Abraham and his descendants---and through them all the world would
also be blessed (Genesis 12:2-3).

Beginning with “Blessed are,”
and with what follows during the course of this particular “sermon,” Jesus
offers up a new set of “laws,” if you will, to govern the way in which His covenant
people will interact in and for the world that His God is redeeming through
Him. If one thinks of Jesus as offering up a new set of governing
principles, such will be a helpful lens through which to view His statement of
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have
not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them” (5:17). Of course,
Jesus also immediately goes on to say “I tell you the truth, until heaven and
earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from
the law until everything takes place” (5:18).

By speaking of “these things” (5:17) along with saying
“heaven and earth pass away” (5:18), Matthew lays the groundwork for the other
important and extended discourse from Jesus to be found in his Gospel, which is
Jesus’ speech concerning the Temple. There, in chapters twenty-four
through twenty-six of Matthew, Jesus makes repeated use of “these things”
(24:2,3,8,33,34,26:1) as well as “Heaven and earth will pass away” (24:35), with
the two statements linked and quite clearly connected with the fall of the
Temple (“heaven and earth” was a common way of referring to the Temple---the
place where heaven and earth meet). One cannot disconnect Jesus words
from chapter five with His words from chapter twenty-four. Doing so would probably be a mistake.

Jesus goes on to say “So anyone
who breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do so will
be called the least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever obeys them and
teaches others to do so will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (5:19). One must be cognizant of the fact that He is
talking about that which He has said here with His initial delivery of the
“laws” upon which He is about to elaborate. In that sense then, one could
even be justified in looking at the “beatitudes” as something of a new set of
“Ten Commandments,” though there are not ten, and though they aren’t really
commandments in the traditional sense. The reader is also put in the
position of seeing the beatitudes as the outline of the sermon, with all that
follows serving as the explanation of those beatitudes.

As is known, Jesus begins by
saying “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to
them” (5:3). Beginning in this manner fits perfectly with what is heard
from Matthew prior to this. First, Matthew introduces John the Baptist
and his message, which is “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near”
(3:2). Then, the first report that is received about that message that
comes from Jesus, as He insists on the need to “Repent, for the kingdom of
heaven is near” (4:17b). Matthew follows this up by informing his
audience that “Jesus went throughout all of Galilee, teaching in their
synagogues, preaching the Gospel of the kingdom” (4:23a). So Jesus
beginning the message in which He outlines His vision of the kingdom of heaven
with a mention of the kingdom of heaven makes perfect sense. He is quite
consistent in this regard.

Sunday, June 22, 2014

Following the telling
of the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, Luke recounts a scene in
which there is an issue with people bringing their babies for Jesus to touch
them. Some did not appreciate this, “and began to scold those who brought
them” (18:15b). However, “Jesus called for the children, saying, ‘Let the
little children come to Me and do not try to stop them, for the kingdom of God
belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, whoever does not receive
the kingdom of God like a child will never enter it.’” (18:16-17)

Now how could this
possibly relate to Zacchaeus? Because Zacchaeus was said to be short
(19:3) should one equate that with being a child? Of course not.
Rather, one must look at the fact that he wanted to “get a look at Jesus”
(19:3a), but because he was short “he could not see over the crowd, So he ran
on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see Him” (19:4a). Quite
simply, men did not climb trees. In an honor and shame culture, climbing
trees was not dignified---it was considered to be a shameful activity for a
man. Such things were left to children. So in climbing the tree,
Zacchaeus attempts to come to come close to Jesus by acting like a child.
In addition to that, it is possible to tie in the story of the healing of the
blind beggar, who most certainly, like Zacchaeus, wanted nothing more than to
get a look at Jesus. Luke indeed is a
skilled constructor of narrative.

Returning again to
the eighteenth chapter of Luke, Luke reports that “a certain ruler” came to
Jesus and “asked Him, ‘Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’”
(18:18) Rather than get sidetracked into a dissertation about the point
of the question and Jesus’ initial response to it, it is best to skip down a
few lines and hear Jesus tell this man to “Sell all that you have and give the
money to the poor” (18:22b). What is it that is heard from
Zacchaeus? “Lord, half of my possessions I now give to the poor”
(19:8b). Now, that doesn’t sound like he is selling all that he has and
giving the money to the poor---it sounds like he is committing to giving half
his possessions to the poor. However, the follow-on statement, which was
“and if I have cheated anyone of anything, I am paying back four times as much”
(19:8c), is likely going to require him to dispose of the remaining half of his
possessions.

In chapter eighteen
Luke records that “when the man heard this he became very sad, for he was
extremely wealthy. When Jesus noticed this, he said, ‘How hard it is for
the rich to enter the kingdom of God!’” (18:23-24) Hard? Yes.
Impossible? No. Jesus says “What is impossible for mere humans is possible
for God” (18:27). To prove that this is the case, Luke offers the story
of Zacchaeus giving away all that he had, entering the kingdom of the Creator God
as a “son of Abraham.” By the way, the man that came to Jesus in chapter
eighteen was said to be a “ruler.” Zacchaeus was also something of a
“ruler,” being a chief tax collector.

Lastly, it is with
interest to note that rather than simply indicating that Zacchaeus has entered
into the kingdom of Israel’s God (acceded to Jesus’ kingdom principles) by his
actions, Jesus refers to him as a son of Abraham. Why make this type of
statement? Well, any mention of Abraham is bound to call to mind the
Creator God’s first words to Abraham, in which the man that was then named
Abram was told that he was going to exemplify divine blessing. It would
certainly not be a stretch to say that Zacchaeus, by giving in the manner that
he proposed, was going to exemplify divine blessing. In so doing then, he would truly become a son
of Abraham.

That exemplification
of divine blessing has been spelled out, to some extent, by Jesus, a bit earlier
in Luke’s Gospel, where Jesus can be heard to say “Blessed are you who are
poor, for the kingdom of God belongs to you. Blessed are you who hunger
now, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you
will laugh” (6:20b-21). Certainly Zacchaeus’ actions blessed the poor and
brought a measure of satisfaction to the hungry, whereas those whom he had
cheated, who had no doubt wept as they slipped further and further into
mounting and perhaps insurmountable debt, who perhaps came to find themselves
in a position in which they were unable to feed themselves and their families
and forced to consider lives of slavery because of that debt, were comforted
with a joy that resulted in laughter at the four-fold reparation.

Then Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this
household, because he too is a son of Abraham!” – Luke 19:9 (NET)

Jesus, in a move that was likely
to have been viewed as shocking by many of its witnesses, went “to be the guest
of a man who is a sinner” (19:7b). That man, of course, was
Zacchaeus. Zacchaeus was not only one of the hated tax collectors that
worked in collusion with the Roman authorities and serving as a constant
reminder of Israel’s continued subjection to a foreign power, but he was also
tagged with the second epithet of being a “sinner” (someone who did not live up
to covenant obligations). Luke informs his audience that Zacchaeus was,
in fact, a “chief tax collector” (19:2), and that commensurate with such a
position, he “was rich” (19:2).

When Jesus encounters Zacchaeus while
passing through Jericho, He invited himself to the house of this rich, chief
tax collector, saying “I must stay at your house today” (19:5b). Though
it is not explicit in the text, one can certainly find an implication that
Jesus was going to be sharing a meal with Zacchaeus, who was going to serve as
His host. Now, this is not the first time that Jesus has made what some
would consider to be a questionable choice in dining companions. The
Gospel of Luke, and indeed all of the Gospels, are littered with accusations of
Jesus dining with “tax collectors and sinners,” which simply was not perceived
to be comely behavior for a man that was somewhat clearly presenting Himself as
a messiah figure.

Beyond that, even when Jesus is not going to dine with those
that are perceived to be the wrong people, and dines with the “right” people
instead, He still comes in for criticism, be it for allowing a disreputable
woman to wash His feet (chapter seven), or for not washing His hands (chapter
eleven). Seemingly, Jesus can’t quite do things properly. Such is
His burden.

Now, no record of Jesus’
interaction with Zacchaeus is provided. Luke moves from the complaint
about Jesus to reporting that “Zacchaeus stopped and said to the Lord, ‘Look,
Lord, half of my possessions I now give to the poor, and if I have cheated
anyone of anything, I am paying back four times as much!’” (19:8) Why
Zacchaeus does this is left for the audience to determine. Clearly
though, he is quite overwhelmed by Jesus’ presence. Perhaps he was also a
witness to Jesus’ healing of the blind beggar, which was done “As Jesus
approached Jericho” (18:35a)?

To that point, Luke write that “When all the people saw”
this healing, “they…gave praise to God” (18:43b). Obviously “all” does
not mean “all,” as it is a use of hyperbole, and one should not presume that
Zacchaeus was part of this group that offered praise to the Creator God as a
result of the healing of the blind man, but surely, even if he did not
personally witness it, the news of this healing would have come to the ears of
Zacchaeus, as tax collectors were certainly attuned to the local goings-on.
Whatever the reason, the fact remains that Zacchaeus is reported to have said
these things after welcoming Jesus joyfully (19:6b), and presumably after
hearing the complaints of the people.

It is Zaccheus’ expression of
financial commitment that prompts Jesus’ statement of “Today salvation has come
to this household, because he too is a son of Abraham!” (19:9) Though
this commitment by Zacchaeus and the resulting words from Jesus were probably
surprises to Jesus’ audience, it would not necessarily come as a surprise to
those that have been paying attention to Luke’s narrative. In fact, the
story of Zacchaeus represents something of a summary of what has come before
and is a vindication of Jesus’ teaching.

In chapter eighteen, Luke presents a parable from Jesus
about “Two men” who “went up to the Temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the
other a tax collector” (18:10). In this parable, the tax collector “stood
far off and would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said,
‘God, be merciful to me, sinner that I am!’” (18:13) Without need to
recount it here, suffice it to say that the Pharisee’s prayer was somewhat
different.

Jesus explains that “this man
went down to his home justified rather than the Pharisee” (18:14).
Interestingly, if one went from the Temple to Jericho, one would be said to
have “went down to his home” (to be fair, all are said to “go down” from
Jerusalem) which fits nicely with the story of Zacchaeus (but Luke has also
told the story of the “Good Samaritan, in which “A man was going down from
Jerusalem to Jericho” (10:30a), so it is not at all difficult to surmise that
Luke wants his audience to think of the tax collector “going down” to Jericho
from the Temple). One also notices that this tax collector referred to
himself as a sinner, which is also said of the tax collector Zacchaeus, which
offers some additional symmetry to the accounts.

Friday, June 20, 2014

Having made this
crossing of the Jordan (leaving the Promised Land), Absalom will never cross
back. It is not insignificant that Absalom’s crossing of the Jordan
coincides with blessings beginning to come David’s way. It is reported
that “When David came to Mahanaim,” men came to him and “brought bedding,
basins, and pottery utensils. They also brought food for David and all
who were with him, including wheat, barley, flour, roasted grain, beans,
lentils, honey, curds, flocks, and cheese” (2 Samuel 17:27a,28-29a).

Remarkably (or
perhaps not so remarkably), this provision of food and supplies for David and
the people with him sounds like what is to be found in the twenty-eighth
chapter of Deuteronomy. There, along with the copious listing of curses
that will come upon the covenant God’s people for failure to adhere to the
terms of the covenant, one also finds the promise of blessings. It is
written: “If you indeed obey the Lord your God and are careful to observe all His
commandments… the Lord your God will elevate you above all the nations of the
earth. All these blessings will come to you in abundance if you
obey the Lord your God: You will be blessed in the city and blessed in the
field. Your children will be blessed, as well as the produce of your
soil, the offspring of your livestock, the calves of your herds, and the lambs
of your flocks. Your basket and your mixing bowl will be blessed.
You will be blessed when you come in and blessed when you go out” (28:1-6).
One can almost certainly imagine David reflecting upon these promised blessings
as he receives the items that are being brought to him at Mahanaim.

If he is thinking in
such ways, then it is at this point that he knows that his God has turned
things in his favor, that truly he is still the anointed one of Israel, and
that Absalom should not have raised his hand (or contemplated raising his hand)
against him. After contemplating the blessings related to sustenance,
David could go on to consider what follows in Deuteronomy, which is “The Lord
will cause your enemies who attack you to be struck down before you; they will
attack you from one direction but flee from you in seven different directions…
The Lord will designate you as His holy people just as He promised you… Then
all the peoples of the earth will see that you belong to the Lord, and they
will respect you” (28:7,9-10). It is after he receives the gifts that,
for him, could serve to indicate the return of the Creator God’s favor and to
remind him of the anointing and promise of his God that had been placed upon
his life and his rule, that “David assembled the army that was with him.
He appointed leaders of thousands and leaders of hundreds. David then
sent out the army” (18:1-2a).

David knew that Israel’s
God was going to be with him and that his return to the throne was now but a
foregone conclusion. With full knowledge that the change of events was
instigated by Absalom’s agreement to unnecessarily raise his hand in violence
against his father, when David sends out the army he says “For my sake deal
gently with the young man Absalom” (18:5b). This, of course, does not
happen, as Joab, David’s general (who has no fear of reprisal from David for a
variety of reasons), has Absalom executed at the first opportunity to do so,
which presented itself relatively quickly. In fact, Absalom was struck
down in the very first military engagement of his kingship, which is
extraordinarily telling. As was said before, once Absalom crossed the
Jordan, thus departing from his exodus and going into exile, he would never
cross back. The only thing that was waiting for him on the other side was
the completion of the curses of exile, which was death---dragged into the
subjugation of creation’s great and foreign power.

Thursday, June 19, 2014

Returning to the text
of Absalom’s story, Hushai, after gaining Absalom’s ear, passes along to David
the news of both his and Ahithophel’s advice, along with Absalom’s response to
that advice. Knowing his own history and reflecting upon his previous
time in exile, this must have been somewhat heartening for David.
Obviously, there would be a level of sadness, in that he now learns that his
son thinks that it is a good idea to have him dispatched from existence, but
there would be a level of encouragement because he could see this as a sign of his
God’s favor returning upon him.

David could reflect
upon the fact that he did not raise his hand against Saul, and that he had been
ultimately rewarded for his restraint. He could think about the fact that
Saul came out after him, and though Saul’s efforts at striking David down
proved unsuccessful, Saul’s efforts also proved to be less than
beneficial. In this unwarranted plan to attack David without provocation,
as (according to the narrative on offer), David has not actively said or done
anything to defeat what he feels might very well be the work of the Creator God,
Absalom has now turned oppressor.

Absalom is no longer
Moses, but rather Saul. He is no longer rescuing the people from
subjugation, but he is instead attempting to subjugate his father who is also
now his subject. Yes, David and the men with him are now Absalom’s
subjects, and therefore it is incumbent upon Absalom to secure blessings for
them. This is quite difficult to do if one is plotting to bring death to
said subjects.

With Absalom’s
approval of Hushai’s plan, events begin to unfold rather quickly. David
is advised to move quickly, lest he be caught, and he does so along with all
his people. Ahithophel, who appears to be sensing oncoming defeat in
addition to having his advice ignored in favor of that of Hushai, kills
himself. David and those with him have crossed the Jordan River,
symbolically leaving the land of Israel, and going to Mahanaim (2 Samuel 17:24a).
Following the plan, “Absalom and all the men of Israel had crossed the Jordan
River” (17:24b) as well.

One may be
predisposed to read by that quickly, but perhaps such should not be the case.
Crossing the Jordan was of tremendous significance in the history of
Israel. Following the exodus and Israel’s time in the wilderness, the
crossing of the Jordan meant that they had crossed over into the land of the
Creator God’s promise. It was, in a sense, the completion of the exodus,
though the exodus would never truly complete, as exodus would prove to be an
ongoing process of deliverance, rescue, redemption, and salvation, which must
be worked out diligently.

Even after Israel
crossed into their promised land, they still had to take the land, drive out
its occupants, and crush the rampant idolatry (which they would fail to
do). In the days of John the Baptist, baptism in the Jordan River was a
clear signal of a new exodus movement and a submission to the claims of the
coming kingdom of their God, just as baptism in this day is a sign of departure
from exile into a life of exodus (a constant entering into the Creator God’s
mission and purpose) and submission to the covenant God’s King, that being Jesus
the Messiah. David, already in a self-imposed exile from Jerusalem and
his throne, crosses the Jordan as he flees Absalom, who is now, unfortunately,
intent upon killing his father.

This does carry some
meaning for David, though it carries far greater meaning for Absalom.
After crossing the Jordan River in his pursuit of his father, as he leads the men
of Israel in this pursuit and as he goes forth to violently raise his hand
against his father, he is going into another exile. With this exile, and
with what it is going to mean for him, his father is now being rescued from
subjugation and delivered from his oppressor. By this, Absalom has
reversed the exodus that he has experienced. He has completely reversed
the Moses-oriented narrative that he had created for himself.

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

While it is true that
a great deal of time and space has been spent dealing with Absalom, it simply
must be said that his story is truly and fascinatingly compelling, as it presents
and ties together (as has been seen) multiple themes that run deep in
Scripture. Therefore his story lends itself to drawing many conclusions
about the Creator God’s working, His mission, and what it is that the Creator
God desires for His people (for all time), as it serves as something of a
climactic turning point in the history of Israel.

Now, it has been
concluded that Absalom’s downfall came because he agreed with the idea of
raising his hand against the Creator God’s anointed, thereby demonstrating that
he did not fully trust that God and the promises upon which he may very well
have been relying. Is this sort of conclusion justified? Apart from
the example of Moses and Israel, which was an example and path from which
Absalom was deviating, was there another example that he could have
followed? Of course there was. It was the example that had been set
by his own father, before he had been corrupted by the power of the
throne.

In the first book of
Samuel, there are two occasions on which David had the opportunity to kill
Saul, his oppressor and subjugator. However, he did not seize upon either
of those opportunities to do so. In fact, David felt guilty for cutting
off an edge of Saul’s robe (1 Samuel 24:4). Of course, to this point
Absalom had not even gone that far. In response to his own action, David
said “May the Lord keep me far away from doing such a thing to my lord, who is
the Lord’s chosen one, by extending my hand against him. After all, he is
the Lord’s chosen one” (24:6).

A short while later,
David calls out to Saul and says “Even though I have not sinned against you,
you are waiting in ambush to take my life” (24:11b). In the case of
Absalom, up until the point that Ahithophel and Hushai speak, there has been no
talk, on either the side of David or Absalom, about one attempting to take the
other’s life. Certainly, it can be said that part of the judgment of the
Creator God that came upon Saul was related to his ongoing desire to physically
and violently raise his hand against the one that his God had been said to have
anointed. Absalom should have continued in the attitude modeled by David
and said “May the Lord judge between the two of us” (24:12a), which had already
apparently been happening in Absalom’s favor based on the fact of the peaceful
exchange of power. In relation to his opportunity to raise his hand
against Saul, David continued with words upon which Absalom should have seized,
saying “may the Lord vindicate me over you, but my hand will not be against
you” (24:12b).

Absalom already had
the support of the people, and it would appear that David himself was willing
to accept Absalom’s exaltation as king. David had been disgraced and
humiliated. The last thing that Absalom needed to do was to take action
that would draw attention, and perhaps even heap sympathy upon David.
Instead, it may very well have been better to completely forget about his
father. Surely, his attempted actions against David might have been
perceived as a spiteful type of “kicking a man while he is down,” which would
serve to elicit the sympathy and condolences of the people while creating an
unfavorable opinion of Absalom as an oppressive ruler that, after all has been
said and done, is not all that interested in justice.

Now, David will be
able to turn his words against Absalom, and paint him as a king who has had the
hand of Israel’s God removed from him, in a way not unlike that which was
experienced by King Saul, and say “Who has the king of Israel come out
after? Who is it that you are pursuing? A dead dog? A single
flea? May the Lord be our judge and arbitrator. May He see and
arbitrate my case and deliver me from your hands” (24:14-15). David will
now be able to turn the tables on Absalom, and make his plea for justice, when
such, to that point, has been Absalom’s cry.

Monday, June 16, 2014

To this point, the
portrayal of David as being similar to Pharoah, David’s removal as being
similar to Pharaoh’s loss of power over Israel, and Absalom’s exodus from his
own exile as akin to Israel’s exodus from Egypt under Moses, was effective, and
perhaps, knowing what is known about David, even appropriate. However, it
is at this point that Absalom, for some unknown reason, though he was receiving
advice to do this, departs from the epic narrative that he has been creating
for himself.

As one thinks back to
the story of Israel’s exodus, one thing that is not be found in that story is
Moses taking it upon himself to raise his hand against the one from whom Israel
was being delivered. Remember, Moses had attempted to start the
revolution in Egypt on behalf of Israel, with his killing of the Egyptian
taskmaster. This failed to accomplish the goal that Moses had in mind,
and he was sent into his own personal exile. When he returned, he was
gifted with the ability to lead an exodus that was peaceful, at least as it
related to the actions of the people. As has been seen, Absalom has
effectively mirrored this. Though he was not, as far as the story goes,
attempting to start a revolution through his killing of Amnon, it was that
killing that resulted in his own exile away from Jerusalem. It was during
that time, no doubt, that the seeds of a plan to take the throne began to
germinate, perhaps primarily because he was treated unjustly due to his execution
of justice.

Returning to the
exodus story then, it is clear that Israel conducted no demonstrations of
violence against Egypt. The Egyptians, on the other hand, experienced the
violent power of Israel’s God, which serves as a reminder of the fact that
Moses left it to the God of Israel to bring judgment and destruction in the way
that He saw fit. Then, after the death of the firstborn, which saw
Pharaoh finally relent from his stubborn stance and practically demand that
Israel depart from Egypt, the last thing Moses was going to do was turn around
and attempt to kill Pharaoh.

In that case, the
Creator God had already judged Pharaoh, so what good would that do? What
would that prove? Even after Pharaoh came out after Moses and Israel,
Moses did not send men to confront Pharaoh and his army. Rather, he
continued to trust the God that delivers to fight on behalf of His
people. Had Moses and Israel raised their hands against Egypt in any way,
things might have turned out quite differently, as it would have been an
indication that they did not fully trust that their covenant God was able to
rescue them from their foreign subjugation.

Absalom would have
been wise to heed this example. Instead, because he was convinced to
believe that it was incumbent upon him to go out after his father, he essentially
forsook the power of the Creator God to solidify his kingship and to carry out
His promises to David through Absalom. Israel did not turn back and fight
against Egypt, rather, they looked forward, preparing themselves to face the
enemies to come. Absalom should have done the same, looking forward as
well, in a spirit of thankfulness, rather than allowing for the entrance of a
spirit that has to be described as nothing more than vengeful. Had he not
been vindicated already? Had he not been exalted? Had Israel’s God
not fought his battles for him? Absalom should never have turned back so
as to bring further suffering on his deposed father. It is this that
would ultimately bring David vindication through suffering (with his own story
of exile to exodus), while bringing suffering to Absalom in the wake of what
had been his own vindication, and sending Absalom from exodus to exile.

Sunday, June 15, 2014

So here is an answer. This, as should be well understood
by now, was completely un-necessary. Seemingly, David was not a threat to
Absalom. David had resolved to leave his destiny in the hands of his
God. Along with that, and based on the mournful response that David makes
when he eventually (after the unfolding of the events to come) receives word of
Absalom having been struck down and killed, one can even imagine that David
asked for his God’s blessing and favor to fall upon the one whom He (God) had
seen fit to place in the role of king, having given him favor with the people
of that God.

No, David did not and could not have seen himself as being
unlawfully or unjustly removed from the throne of Israel; and if he truly was
the man after the Creator God’s own heart, and if he truly served under a
special anointing of that God, it would have been incumbent upon him to seek
and to serve his God’s will, even if that meant that he was not to be the
king. Based on what he had done and had not done, as he delivered
oppression and usurped justice (with morality-related mistakes to which fallen
humans are prone as secondary issues), David would have been justified in believing
in this way and acting accordingly.

Hushai, the one that
had sent back to Jerusalem by David to serve as a “double-agent” in Absalom’s
court, suggested a different strategy than that of Ahithophel. He
reminded Absalom of the fact that his father was, most certainly, a warrior,
and that the men with him were quite brave (2 Samuel 17:10). In that
light, he suggests that “all Israel from Dan to Beer Sheba---in number like the
sand of the sea!---be mustered to you, and you lead them personally into battle”
(17:11b).

How interesting it is
that Hushai just happens to toss in, almost as an aside, a description of the
people of Israel as being as numerous as the sand on the seashore. In his
advice to Absalom, which was really part of his service to David, he invokes
the memory of the covenant promise that Israel’s God had originally made to
Abraham. It is probably this, more than anything else that he said, that
inspires Absalom to be partial to Hushai’s advice. After all, what proud,
self-respecting Israelite would not be moved to act when regaled with such
speech, as the person on the receiving end of such words would now be connected
with the great patriarchal father?

Hushai adds: “We will
come against him wherever he happens to be found. We will descend on him
like the dew falls on the ground. Neither he nor any of the men who are
with him will be spared alive---not one of them! If he regroups in a
city, all Israel will take up ropes to that city and drag it down to the
valley, so that not a single pebble will be left there!” (17:12-13)
Hushai is definitely engaging in some pronounced hyperbole here. Though
he does not believe or desire that such things will happen, he uses terms such
as “All Israel,” and in reference to those with David, says that “not one of
them” will be spared. These things are quite unlikely, yet for some
reason they are appealing to Absalom. “Absalom and all the men of Israel
said, ‘The advice of Hushai the Arkite sounds better than the advice of
Ahithophel” (17:14a). So Absalom is heeding advice that is directed
towards attacking and killing his father and his father’s men. This becomes
his fatal mistake.

Following the report
of the favorable response to Hushai’s advice, the author adds what is obviously
a retroactive application of what was ultimately manifested as Divine
displeasure with Absalom, no doubt because of the course of action that was now
going to be undertaken, saying “the Lord had decided to frustrate the sound
advice of Ahithophel, so that the Lord could bring disaster upon Absalom”
(17:14b). This is the first negative connotation that one can find, from
either the Lord of Israel or from man, in the story of Absalom’s insurrection
and coming to power. To this point, Absalom could very well lay claim to
being a leader and deliverer for Israel in the mold of Moses.

Saturday, June 14, 2014

Absalom appears to be enjoying the Creator God’s favor upon
his life and his kingship. He has suffered in exile, and now he has been
vindicated from that suffering. He has been delivered to the kingship of the
covenant people of the covenant God. Much like Israel, it could be said
that he had “taken the land.” The demonstration of that ongoing Scriptural
theme of exile and exodus has been well demonstrated, and above all things, it
shows that he is not only now of kinship with Moses, but also Israel itself
(from Egypt to the Promised Land), of Jacob (to Haran and back to Canaan), and
Abraham (from Ur to Canaan, and from Egypt to Canaan). It cannot be
emphasized enough that he can consider himself to have been vindicated by his God,
with evidence of such, following his long ordeal, that he is hailed as Israel’s
king. It must be further emphasized, quite strenuously, that his
ascension to the throne (the completion of his personal exodus journey) has
been accomplished without resort to military operations.

As has been previously pointed
out, he has not had to raise his hand against Israel’s anointed king. The
people can freely support him in good conscience, knowing full well that David
appears to have abdicated willingly. If indeed the Bathsheba/Uriah
incident has been made public knowledge, which seems like a reasonable
proposition because of Absalom’s actions with David’s concubines (wives) in
sight of the people, that was meant to be a demonstration of the judgment
pronounced against him by the Creator God through the prophet Nathan, then
David’s peaceful abdication would have seemed altogether appropriate, with
Absalom’s peaceful taking of power (in this context) completely understandable.

Then, the unraveling
begins. Absalom quickly moves from the place of apparent favor and
blessing of Israel’s God, with an implicit sanction of his kingship (because of
his role in delivering prophesied and embarrassing judgment for David) with
David slinking quietly away into the background, into the opposite
situation. Almost immediately upon becoming secure upon the throne,
Absalom begins to see his station slipping from him. To a point, he had
been growing in favor with man (and apparently) with God, but this now
turns. Absalom starts to fall into the Creator God’s disfavor, and David
begins to regain in favor.

This can’t simply be because David had been anointed by God
to replace Saul and lead the covenant people, as the Creator God is free to
work through Absalom (according to the promise to David) to cause His people to
be a light to the nations and to reflect His glory into the world, so there
must be a signal reason why this takes place. Did Absalom have his own
Bathsheba situation? Not as far as the Scriptures report. Did he
fail to execute justice as did David in the situation with Amnon and
Tamar. Again, not as far as is known. So what was it? Why is the
Creator God’s blessing suddenly removed from him? What is it that causes
the people to slowly begin to turn from Absalom and reinstitute their support
of David?

The answer is found in the first
few verses of the seventeenth chapter of the second book of Samuel. What
does this passage say? There it is reported that, “Ahithophel said to
Absalom, ‘Let me pick out twelve thousand men. Then I will go and pursue
David this very night. When I catch up with him he will be exhausted and
worn out. I will rout him, and the entire army that is with him will
flee. I will kill only the king and will bring the entire army back to
you. In exchange for the life of the man you are seeking, you will get
back everyone’.” (17:1-3a) What was Absalom’s response to this? In
what should be a surprise, based on how things have gone and what has been
accomplished to that point, it is said that “This seemed like a good idea to
Absalom and to all the leaders of Israel” (17:4). Though Absalom would
also seek out further advice and eventually act upon advice contrary to what
was offered by Ahithophel, the point is that this seemed like a good idea to
Absalom.

Friday, June 13, 2014

Everything was going well for Absalom. He had taken
the throne. He had secured the support of one of his father’s chief
advisors. His efforts at fostering a sense of justice and peace through
brotherhood with the people seemed to have been effective, as Absalom had “won
the loyalty of the citizens of Israel” (2 Samuel 15:6b). The narrative of
exile and exodus that he had been creating for himself had paid off, as “the
people were starting to side with Absalom” (15:12b). Even his father had
been told that “The men of Israel are loyal to Absalom!” (15:13b).

Due to this loyalty and support,
Absalom entered Jerusalem peacefully (15:37b), apparently encountering no
resistance. To go with all of this, Hushai the Arkite, another one of his
father’s servants, came to Absalom in Jerusalem and said “I will be loyal to
the one whom the Lord, these people, and all the men of Israel have
chosen. Moreover, whom should I serve? Should it not be his
son? Just as I served your father, so I will serve you” (16:18b).

Now, Absalom did not know that Hushai had attempted to go
with David, and had gone back to Jerusalem at David’s request for the expressed
purpose of countering the advice that Ahithophel would provide to Absalom
(15:34). So as far as Absalom would have been concerned, these words from
Hushai, that were actually words of deception that were put in Hushai’s mouth
by David, were simply further evidence that his plan had been successful, and
that the God of Israel was favoring him in his efforts.

As one reads through this story
(which seems to have a place of importance in the life of David and the history
of Israel), it would be easy to conclude that even David himself seems to have
been resigned to the possibility that Absalom’s exodus to kingship, and his own
exile from the throne, was part of the Creator God’s will, as again, the
promise to David was that he would have a dynasty on the throne. The rule
of Absalom most certainly fit within that framework. To go along with that, David would have been
none too surprised that this was part of his God’s judgment upon him for his
failures as king (Uriah, Amnon). Witness to this is that he has taken
only mild measures to retain his position, involving Zadok, Abiathar, and
Hushai in that effort.

Thinking about this for a
moment, when David employs Zadok and Abiathar (along with their sons) as spies,
it is a bit of a perversion of their role (as priests) to represent the people
before their God. Nevertheless, this resignation is partly indicated
(among other things that have already been explored) by the fact that David
sends the Ark of the Covenant back to Jerusalem, and his saying “If I find
favor in the Lord’s sight He will bring me back and enable me to both see it
and His dwelling place again” (15:25b). That was said together with
“However, if He should say, ‘I do not take pleasure in you,’ then He will deal
with me in a way that He considers appropriate” (15:26). Additionally,
the words that David spoke in the wake of being cursed and assaulted (rocks
thrown) by Shimei, only points to his understanding that all of this might very
well have been his God’s will.

So as was said, everything was
going swimmingly for Absalom. He had led his peaceful insurrection, and
it has been accomplished by winning the hearts of the people. In essence,
according to the historic narrative of Israel, he was Moses and he was leading
Israel in a new exodus movement with the Lord of Israel on his and their side.
Indeed, Absalom, if he would have been so inclined, could have stood before the
people and said “just as the Lord fought for Israel in Egypt, rescuing a people
by the acts of His mighty hand, so He has again fought for Absalom and Israel,
delivering me to the throne of His people, by the singular working of His
powerful, saving might.”

Reinforcing such a thought, he has now even heard it said,
by one of his father’s trusted servants, that he (Absalom) was anointed by both
Israel’s Lord and the people. To that point, any such mention of
anointing (in the mold of Saul and David) had been completely absent from the
narrative. Upon this, his revolution was complete. Absalom was
king. The covenant God was going to fulfill the promises to David through
him. Then, in the midst of this, the tide turned. Everything
changed. Events began to unfold that would unravel Absalom’s
victory.

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

In the Deuteronomic
curses, Moses informs the Creator God’s people that one of the curses that will
come upon them for their failure to obey their God’s commands (of which David
was certainly guilty) would be that “You will be engaged to a woman and another
man will rape her” (Deuteronomy 28:30a). This is not strictly analogous
to what Nathan has told David, or to what it has been suggested that Absalom
do, as neither this God’s threat through Nathan nor Ahithophel’s suggestion to
Absalom carries with it (at least on the surface) the connotation of violence
or force, but it can probably be thought of as being connected closely enough
to drive home the point to David that he has violated his God’s commands.

Additionally,
Ahithophel apparently sees a close enough connection in that it will play well
into Absalom’s ongoing effort to show himself as a true deliverer in the mold
of Moses, thereby allowing Absalom to continue co-opting the most powerful
story of Israel’s history for his own purposes. Furthermore, it adds to
Absalom’s claim to be a just man and the one that is used by the covenant God
to deliver justice to Israel. This is especially and strikingly so if
Absalom is the means by which the prophecy (judgment) related to cursing that
had been delivered to David by Nathan is fulfilled.

This merely cements
the notion that David is no longer fit to be king, while also pointing to the
fact that the story of Bathsheba and David, and the oppression and injustice
that the story entails, has been made known in Israel. If it has not,
then there is no real point in Absalom engaging in sexual relations with his
father’s concubines, unless it is also being used to indicate that just as
David has forsaken these wives of his, that he has also forsaken his care of
the people of Israel as well.

The second part of
Ahithophel’s response to the request to provide advice to Absalom is to say
that “All Israel will hear that you have made yourself repulsive to your father.
Then your followers will be motivated to support you” (2 Samuel 16:21b).
Yes, Ahithophel suggests that this will be viewed by the people as Absalom
being willing to be cursed by his very own father, if it indeed means justice
for Israel. This is powerful symbolism. Absalom will be seen to be willing to bear
that pain and shame on behalf of the people, with this becoming a messianic
role. In a society based upon honor and shame, this is a calculated move
(though also prophetically fulfilling) to win further sympathy from the
people.

Does this aid Absalom
in his desire to be seen as Moses? Absolutely! Moses was willing to
forsake his father’s (Pharoah’s) house so as to identify himself with the
people suffering under the oppression of the king. Thinking beyond that however,
this might also be an attempt to entice David to retaliate against Absalom, who
up to this point has not lifted up his hand (nor asked anybody else to lift up
their hand) against his father.

David has left
willfully. He has abandoned his throne and fled from Jerusalem and
Absalom has peacefully entered to take that throne. There has been no bloodshed, violence, or
loss of life (except Amnon many years prior, but that has only tangential
bearing on the events at hand at that time). If David now turns and
raises sword and spear against Absalom and his supporters, then David is most
certainly to be likened to Pharaoh, who allowed Israel to depart from Egypt and
from his oppression peacefully, but then had a change of heart and set out to
recover the Israelites (and his power) by violent means.

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Surely, the curses
and stones being hurled at David from this man served as a vivid demonstration
of the Deuteronomic curses and the exile in which those curses are
enfolded. Thus, this man, as David rightly surmised, was being used by
Israel’s God (at that point), to bring David’s failures to mind. One
could also think of Goliath uttering curses at David and Israel, along with
David’s felling him with a stone from his slingshot.

Additionally,
Abishai’s use of the term “dead dog,” which the author was sure to mention here
in the telling of this story, had to have been a reminder to David of
Mephibosheth’s response to him, when David restored Mephibosheth to his lands
and gave him a place at the king’s table. Mephibosheth referred to
himself as a “dead dog” that was undeserving of such treatment by the king.
That event, perhaps more so than any other in the life of David, saw him
demonstrating the compassion of the covenant God of Israel in a way that would
most definitely have served to allow him to shine as a light to the nations and
to reflect the glory of his God into the world, as he lifted up the grandson of
his enemy.

If that was a
consideration, David could not then help but be reminded of the way he had
honored his God and his kingship before he began robbing (wives and lives and
justice) from his people. Yes, to return to an issue previously raised,
which was that of David himself going into exile, in light of a later promise
to Israel that the sign of their exile would be the eternal rule of a Davidic
king, David was eventually returned to Jerusalem and re-established as
king. If David himself could go into exile and be exodus-ed from that
exile and restored to the kingship, then so too could Israel (Judah) be later exiled
to Babylon and subjected to a foreign nation, while trusting in their God’s
promise to return them to their land.

Now after Absalom
entered Jerusalem, he sought the counsel of Ahithophel, saying “Give us your
advice. What should we do?” (2 Samuel 16:20b) Ahithophel provides a
two part answer. The first part of his answer is “Have sex with your
father’s concubines whom he left to care for the palace” (16:21a).
Absalom, quite pleased with this suggestion (for obvious and perhaps not so
obvious reasons), seizes on the idea and follows through on it. The
author reports that “they pitched a tent for Absalom on the roof, and Absalom
had sex with his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel” (16:22).
Why does Ahithophel suggest this? Why does Absalom do it? It is
suggested and undertaken because of what it was that the prophet Nathan had
said to David after David’s taking of Uriah’s wife and life.

Through Nathan, the
Creator God had said to David, “you have despised Me by taking the wife of
Uriah the Hittite as your own!” (12:10b)
Though it does not provide a direct correlation, it would not be too
far-fetched to suggest that this despising of Israel’s God by David bears very
little difference from Israel’s forsaking of their God and their worship of
idols, by which they most assuredly despised Him. If this is correct,
then it is only right that David experience what his God promises to His people
for idolatry, which is cursing (exile). So Nathan continues, saying “This
is what the Lord says: ‘I am about to bring disaster on you from inside your
household!’” (12:11a) Certainly the Absalom situation, which has been
created and fueled by the Tamar and Amnon situation and the resulting fall-out,
could be described as disaster from inside the household. Furthermore, the
covenant God says, “Right before your eyes I will take your wives and hand them
over to your companion. He will have sexual relations with your wives in
broad daylight!” (12:11b) Why? Because “Although you have acted in
secret, I will do this thing before all Israel, and in broad daylight” (12:12).
This is obviously fulfilled.

Monday, June 9, 2014

The only blood that
was shed throughout the entirety of the time in which the plagues of Egypt ran
their course was that of the lambs that were shed on behalf of the households
of Israel. The only bloodshed that preceded deliverance and exodus was
that of sacrifice. What bloodshed can be seen in the run-up to Absalom’s
insurrection? Only that of sacrifice---when Absalom offered sacrifices in
Hebron (2 Samuel 15:12). Quite rightly, if one desires to take a step
here to make a connection to Jesus, Jesus could have spoken to a people that
considered themselves to be a people in exile, under oppression, and reminded
them that their God delivered their nation and gave them exodus without the
people having to rise up in rebellion in order to cast off that
yoke.

Following the death
of the firstborn in Egypt, Pharaoh sent Israel out of the land. Their
exodus was begun through the intervention of the Creator God alone.
Israel did not have to resort to the force of arms for even a single
moment. Neither did Absalom. David departed from Jerusalem, going
into exile much like Pharaoh, his army, and the land of Egypt (which was soon
to be over-run by the Amalekites), and Absalom entered into Jerusalem without
having to physically raise his hand against his father (15:37).

Absalom could use
this fact to point out that yes, Israel’s God was showing favor upon him, and
by extension showing favor to Israel---delivering a kingdom into his
hand. This could have been used as evidence that he had, in fact, been
raised up like Moses, and that David had been deposed from the position of
power, much like Pharaoh. Beyond that, Absalom could make it very clear
that he did not lift up his hand against the Lord’s anointed, following the noble
example that had been set by his previously non-oppressive father, who, when
given the opportunity to act otherwise, had refrained from striking out against
Saul.

Back to David and
back to his exilic experience, this study meets up with him as he
“reached Bahurim” (16:5). “There a man from Saul’s extended family
named Shimei son of Gera came out, yelling curses as he approached. He
threw stones at David and all of King David’s servants, as well as all the
people and the soldiers who were on his right and left. As he yelled curses,
Shimei said, “Leave! Leave! You man of bloodshed, you wicked
man! The Lord has punished you for all the spilled blood of the house of
Saul, in whose place you rule. Now the Lord has given the kingdom into
the hand of your son Absalom. Disaster has overtaken you, for you are a
man of bloodshed!’” (16:5b-8)

Those that were with
David, quite understandably, did not appreciate being cursed at and having
stones thrown at them. One of them, Abishai, who was ever the loyal
fellow, said “Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go
over and cut off his head!” (16:9b) Not only did David not allow him to
do this, he said “If he curses because the Lord has said to him, ‘Curse
David!’, who can say to him, ‘Why have you done this?’” (16:10b) To that
David added, “Leave him alone so that he can curse, for the Lord has spoken to
him. Perhaps the Lord will notice my affliction and this day grant me
good in place of his curse” (16:11b-12). With his final remark, and its
mention of affliction, the reader is offered a small glimpse of David’s insight
into this exile.

Sunday, June 8, 2014

This exile that David
was experiencing had several of the marks of the curses promised in
Deuteronomy. The author reports: “As David was going up the Mount of Olives,
he was weeping as he went; his head was covered and his feet were bare.
All the people who were with him also had their heads covered and were weeping
as they went up” (2 Samuel 15:30). Does this not sound like the way that
slaves would be carried off by a conquering foe? Is it possible to find
this paralleled in Deuteronomy? There one reads of “hunger, thirst,
nakedness, and poverty” (28:48a).

David, with all of
his riches, was fleeing Jerusalem with nothing. In fact, this is
evidenced by the fact that shortly thereafter, “Ziba, the servant of
Mephibosheth… had a couple of donkeys that were saddled, and on them were two
hundred loaves of bread, a hundred raisin cakes, a hundred baskets of summer
fruit, and a container of wine” (16:1b), so as to provide for the king and his
people during their journey into exile for lack of faithfulness to their covenant
responsibilities.

In the midst of the
travel of his travail, David, having begun to recognize where his faults had
been and what it was that had brought him to this horrible predicament, begins
to strategize. He has already sent the Ark of the Covenant back to
Jerusalem for good reason, and implores the Creator God to turn the advice of
one of his chief advisers, Ahithophel, who was now supporting and advising
Absalom, into foolishness. In addition, he employed the priests, Zadok
and Abiathar, to serve as his spies within Jerusalem.

As David begins to
remember the God of Israel and His faithfulness, he also begins to be fully
cognizant of the exilic nature of what is happening to him, and vice
versa. No doubt this experience is going to serve him well, if in fact his
God does restore him to the throne, which at this point was certainly not a
foregone conclusion. Remember, even if David is removed from the throne,
the promise is that the God of Israel would make a dynasty of his house, which
he could very well do through Absalom, who, at this point, has carried out a
successful rebellion and insurrection without shedding any blood.

In considering that, it
is worth once again making note of the strategy which might very well have been
being employed by Absalom. Absalom has, quite possibly, positioned
himself as a new Moses that is leading a new exodus for Israel, with a delivery
from a new Pharaoh, that being David, who had become an oppressor in
Israel. Remember, Israel began to suffer oppression in Egypt when a
Pharaoh came to power that did not know Joseph.

Naturally, it was not
so much that said Pharaoh did not know Joseph, but more that he had forgotten what had been
wrought on behalf of Egypt, with Egypt gaining an empire through the power and
deliverance of the God of Joseph and Israel. In making his case, Absalom
could certainly point to David’s less than just actions and point out that
David had forgotten the faithful, powerful, delivering, kingdom giving God of
Israel---the very God that had delivered David from Saul and from his own
earlier time of exile and
oppression.

Furthermore, as one
examines the potential of Absalom positioning himself as a new Moses and
leading a new exodus, it should be remembered that Israel’s Egyptian exodus was
carried out with no bloodshed. Moses had attempted such and failed,
earning only a personal exile which eventually resulted in his calling by the
covenant God. Israel did not rise up en masse to overthrow and defeat
Egypt by means of violence. They did not have to resort to war.
Rather, their God worked for them. The Creator God brought Egypt low
through plagues and the eventual death of the firstborn.

Saturday, June 7, 2014

Does David get a sense of this? Did he realize that
the Ark was being treated as a talisman and an idol? This had happened
once before during the time of the judges, when Hophni and Phinehas, the
corrupt sons of Eli, brought the Ark into the presence of the Israelite army as
they were being threatened by and were fearful of the army of the
Philistines. What happened to the Ark in that instance? It was
captured by the Philistines. Israel fell to the Philistines in battle,
Hophni and Phinehas were killed, Eli fell over and broke his neck when he heard
the news of the Ark’s capture, and Phinehas’ wife gave birth to a son and named
him Ichabod, saying that “The glory has departed from Israel, because the Ark
of God has been captured” (1 Samuel 4:22).

Understandably then, David did not want to be on any side of
that issue. He did not want to treat the Ark as an idol. He did not
want to leave the people in a vulnerable position without the presence of their
God, and thereby effectively in exile. He did not want to be thought of
as somebody who had captured the Ark and therefore caused the glory of the Lord
to depart from Israel, nor did he want to experience the exile-like curses that
came upon the Philistines because they presumed to possess the Ark of the
Covenant God. So “the king said to Zadok, ‘Take the Ark of God back to
the city. If I find favor in the Lord’s sight He will bring me back and
enable me to see both it and His dwelling place again. However, if He
should say, “I do not take pleasure in you,” then He will deal with me in a way
that He considers appropriate’.” (15:25-26) This represents a turning of
the tide for David. Once he actively recognizes the Lord God of Israel’s
hand in all of these things, matters begin to turn out better for him and worse
for Absalom.

Later on in Israel’s
history, the book of Jeremiah will inform a people that are nearing a time of
exile and foreign subjugation to not lose heart or forget the covenant
faithfulness of their God. Their God has delivered a solemn promise,
saying “When the time for them to be rescued comes… I will rescue you from
foreign subjugation. I will deliver you from captivity. Foreigners
will then no longer subjugate them. But they will be subject to the Lord
their God and to the Davidic ruler whom I will raise up as king over them”
(30:8-9). Ironically, it is King David---the very one to whom is made
reference by the term “Davidic ruler”---that is himself going into exile.
He is, in a way, undergoing a foreign subjugation. Why? Because,
like Israel itself, he had taken his eyes off of his God. Because, like
Israel itself, he had forgotten his purpose. He had begun to treat the
people of Israel as if they were there for him, rather than remembering his role
and that he was there to be a servant to the covenant people of the covenant
God.

How could he serve
them best? By being a testimony of what it looked like to be a light to
the surrounding nations and so reflect the glory, into the world, of the God
Who had anointed him and delivered him a kingdom. How could he do that if
he was oppressing his own people, taking their wives, and killing them?
How could he do that if he was showing favoritism to his own son and not
executing what justice demanded? How could he do that if he allowed the
relationship with another son to deteriorate to the point that that son could
feel the need to turn the people against his father and take the kingdom for
himself? David had become a king for himself and for his own glory,
rather than for his people, for the world, and for the glory of Israel’s
God. This was David’s idolatry, and it had earned him an exile.